28 Comments:

Anonymous said...

in addition to being vocation director for the pallotines (http://www.archmil.org/vocations/pallotine.asp), jeff is also the vice president of the vocation ministers of the milwaukee archdiocese (VMMA)http://www.thinkpriest.org/news.html

I'll bet I know. Let's not make this too easy. The saint that this priest's parish is named after was cannonized by Gregory IX who declared that he no more doubted the saintliness of this person than he did that of St. Peter and St. Paul. This roomate sitiation is a disturbing development. I can only assume his pastor doesn't know.

Referring to the knowledge of the pastor means that the priest in question is an assoicate pastor.

A quick google search shows three big canonizations by Gregory IX:

St. Francis of AssisiSt. Elisabeth of Hungary andSt. Anthony of Padua

According to archmil.org, there is no Elizabeth except in Kenosha, and the only Francis of Assisi is in Milwaukee. Neither of these is "a prosperous West Suburban parish."

There is a St. Anthony in Menomonee Falls; but no associate there. There is a St. Anthony in Pewaukee. Although the parish's website says nothing of Padua as the home of their patron (a level of disregard for the meaning of the communion of saints worthy of comment another day), it seems to be the likeliest option. And there is an associate!

If I am not mistaken, the associate there is a prodigal son of the diocese who was ordained elsewhere, and returned recently.

If true, I guess he might have felt that this Archbishop would be more approving of his "prodigal son" ways than his previous bishop.

Am I getting warmer?

Just another example of why so many priests really want live outside of rectories.

Would Dad29 please clarify what is "fun" about the witch hunt that he has started? (And, may I add, not for the first time.)

There is an interesting set of rules for living that make a point that Dad29 and others might want to spend some time pondering.It goes something like this: #8 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Perhaps,there are other reasons that the two are temporarily living together besides kisses under the mistletoe. Why not find out the truth and spread that for a change? Or wouldn't that be any fun?

On the one hand, I had always heard the the present associate at St. Dominics had a solid reputation. So, te benefit of the doubt might well be due.

But on the other hand, to Anon immediately above: yes there may be lots of reasons for the way lots of things occur. But that, by itself, is not enough to forbid the raising of questions about appropriateness. One possible benign explanation , does not lift the burden to avoid situations where countless bad explanations could be inferred.

There may be lots of reasons that a middle-aged executive takes his young secretary to "conferneces" in the Bahamas; there may be lots of reasons why some bookkeeprers do not want the books audited; there may be lots of reasons for one more drink before heading home...but none of that means that there are not also good reasons to for others to ask questions about appropriate, or inappropriate, perceptions being conveyed.

They may want it differently, but I think that priests should have the same expectations (if not higher) for publicly percieved behaviors that the rest of us have.

Mike - I agree with you. I do think people need to take responsibility for the choices that they make, whatever the reason behind them. It just strikes me that Dad29 has turned this into a guessing game. Even you were wondering about the associate at St. Anthony.If Dad29 has facts, why not just say so. Rumors are so dangerous!

Yes, I am trying, too, to understand just what the scandal is, particularly since Q at St D's has a pretty good reputation.

Is the scandal that his new host, J, belongs to a few tired lefty irrelevant Catholic apostolates? If so, he can count scandal at every parish in the Archdiocese, since most parish staff fraternize in those circles.

Is the scandal that a newbie associate is tired of sharing a small rectory with his boss? If so, again count every new asssociate in the scandal. I have never met one who welcomes the odd situation of co-habiting with the boss. Better to co-habit with a friends.

If the scandal is the implication that these two are compromising the virtue of celibacy, then I indeed agree with Anon that proof should be forthcoming. But my sources tell me that Q is quite faithful in his vows, and that J is quite single and celibate (by circumstance if not by choice) and content to remain so.

First, while there is a place for raising issues in a public forum, to raise potentially damaging ones against a member of the clergy without ANY measure of proof is sinful. And to do so while protecting one's own identity (Dad 29)is COWARDICE. If there is some sort of basis for these accusations, then any CHRISTIAN person would have contacted the priest's pastor, or the Vicar for Clergy....or what ever happened to asking the priest in question directly? Hmmm...sounds like fraternal charity the Church advises! What a concept!

Second, let us not forget that we are seriously in violation of canon law here ourselves....the right to one's good name:

Can. 1390 §1. A person who falsely denounces before an ecclesiastical superior a confessor for the delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1387 incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a suspension.

§2. A person who offers an ecclesiastical superior any other calumnious denunciation of a delict or who otherwise injures the good reputation of another can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.

Third, anyone who has spent any time at the parish in question, or who has sources (much like Virgil) knows that the priest in question is a solid guy who takes his vows seriously.

And fourth, anyone who has spent any time at the parish in question, or who has sources (much like Virgil) knows that the priest in question has some serious health issues and has been significantly handicapped for some time. Perhaps this is a situation of one friend helping another during a time of great need?

Shame on you, Dad 29. While I'm dismayed with Mike, at least he has the humility to acknowledge "benefit of the doubt," which is more than what your nasty soul is capable of doing.

Mary Ann has hit the "nail on the head", as to the reason for J moving in with Q. (Which by the way, is the correct order. Q has lived in the same place for several years). Q has a life long degenerative condition which lately has flared due to advanced degenerative arthritis in his lower spine. He is facing serious surgery and has fallen several times. J is there to help in the case of an emergency.As a coworker and close friend of Q, I have been given permission to share this information. The stress of Dad29's latest witch hunt has not done anything to help Q's condition.Now that the truth is known, please leave him alone. He has enough to deal with already.Kathie Beuscher

I have been a faithful reader of this blog. I have also provided information which I probably should not have. If my identity was discovered, I could be in big trouble and possibly without a job. Given the fact that this site has allowed "nasty" people like dad29 to spread harmful rumors, I will provide no information in the future. I would not be able to live with the slimey feeling.

You people are sick sick sick. Amazing how your speculation leaps (no, sprints!) to laying blame on lefties and barely muting your hatred of gays. No wonder people look on us as a bunch of modern day Klansmen.

In reading all this from earlier this year, I'm noticing that something very vital is missing. Is anyone aware...ESPECIALLY the Archdiocese of Milw...that Jeff Montoya is a CONVICTED FELON! How DARE he be allowed to hold ANY position in the Catholic Church! Such a disgusting disgrace!

Jeff Montoya was convicted in 2004 of fleeing/eluding an officer, which is a felony in this state. He also was ordered to have intensive alcohol/drug abuse assessments and treatments. He spent 60 days in the house of corrections. Although he served his time, he showed to have a complete lack of judgement, a disrespect for authority, and I don't want to assume but given the nature of it this sounds to me like he had a drug or alcohol problem. I don't have children, but if I did I sure wouldn't want my child being ministered by this man!

I sure wish I would have read this stuff when Father Q & J.M. came to our Greenfield Parish! We could have avoided the scandal that they caused!Our current Pastor publicly filed charges against Father in summer/Fall of 2009 & he has yet to respond or rectify the matter! He sure seemed faithful, almost too good to be true! A wolf in sheep's clothing!

As for J.M. He should never be teaching children the faith again nor should he be employed by the Holy Catholic Church! He is a Deacon in the Universal Anglican Church, (http://milwaukeeministry.org/)as well as a Reiki Master among other things!The last thing the Church needs are Priests & Religious Ed Directors showing our Religious Ed students alternate life styles!

Thank God we have a solid parish & our members & staff found out what was going on before too much damage was done! I feel sorry for other Parishes that have to find out the hard way like we did.

We need to pray for our Priests, religious, & lay directors that they remain faithful to the Magisterium!